Re: DHCP fall back to link-local? (IPv4)

[Marc Herbert <Marc Herbert gmail com>]

Dan Williams a écrit :

> The problem is that most of the time this isn't useful.  Either you have
> a DHCP server and you can get to external resources, or you don't have a
> DHCP server and you just want to talk to another computer.

The whole point of this "fallback" feature (that you seem to be missing) 
is to be able to freely MOVE your laptop between these two very different 
configurations, without ANY kind of re-configuration.

Granted, it can make some cases less than optimal like you just 
demonstrated. But it supports every case. It is a trade-off.


> If you have a DHCP server, but it's down, falling back to IPv4LL doesn't get you
> anywhere.

... and NOT falling back does not get you anywhere either. So here it 
does not make much difference.


> If you don't have a DHCP server, and you know that, then
> making NM use DHCP is also pointless, because you've just added about 45
> seconds of latency to the connection.

True. But for totally ignorant people (that is: most of the users) 45 
seconds is a really small price to pay compared to spending half an hour 
on the phone.


> I guess my point is that in the DHCP case, fallback to zeroconf is
> simply confusing for a ton of users (which is why that behavior was
> removed in the first place)

... confusing but ironically the default for Windows and Mac OS X, two 
operating systems notorious for their lack of user-friendliness.

Between being the default behaviour and not even having the feature, I 
can see something like a gap.


> So if you know you want zeroconf, use zeroconf, don't use DHCP.

This is assuming you know. This fall back feature is precisely for the 
"dunno" case.

Cheers,

Marc